At some point, I’d like to start a thread on the nature of morality, but it seems obvious that one would first have to examine an apriori assumption. We would have to decide whether we think man is inherently good, or man is inherently evil. Quite possibly, we could decide that he is both, which would increase the complexity ten fold and raise all sorts of fun issues such as free will…
And so I would ask, are we good, evil, both, neither? How do we know that?
JT
Inherently we are defined as Good or Evil by the variables that change us through our upbringing. Everything gives a reaction to us as we grow and as we grow our morals of good and evil become locked into place as a majority. Inherently in my own opinion it is defined as the variables that change us into good or evil.
If good is simply that which coheres, and evil that which disassembles, man is inherently both. Whether a person disassembles towards an ultimate coherence, which would make him “goodâ€, or works a particular coherence towards an ultimate disassembling, which would make him evil, is unknowable and perhaps meaningless. The processes in which man participates, and which participate through man, ultimately must be judged, a judgment that cannot be rendered.
Dunamis
Human nature is neutral. Although it also contains striking contrasts that make it seem like it might be primarily Evil or Good. There are examples of benevolence and malice in every life. No one is a perfect saint and nobody is rotten to the core. As much as we might want to simplify the situation it is endlessly complex.
There is no good. There is no evil. These things only exist because we, mankind have created them. The further we move away from that which we are inherently, our divine nature, let’s call it God-like, and God is ineffable to most of us at this stage, the closer we come to good and evil. Good and evil are not real, they are part of maya - they simply exist because we made them so.
How do we know? Because we know ourselves.
A
Hi everybody,
If something good is something that is timely, opportune, appropriate, matured, seasoned or ripened and something evil is something that is ill-timed, inappropriate, untimely, undeveloped, immature, and unripe – then I agree with Dunamis, we can be both, and are often both in our lives. It just depends on the degree of immaturity or putridity and its effects on the world around us, as to whether we become declared as being evil.
I have for some time been interested in the idea of Flow or the “flow state†and used certain ideas in the organisation of a care ward. The effects were interesting and satisfying for my staff too. I gave me the idea that the flow state gives us the idea of something being good, and its disturbance would obviously be the opposite.
Shalom
Now that’s fuckin’ funny.
hello tentative,
Defining good and evil is not a simple task, but to me it is all relative. Some Hindus used to think that it was right to burn the widow (alive, no less) upon the funeral pyre of her dead husband, but to many other cultures this would have been a heinous crime. This illustrates that good and evil is relative to one’s culture. Good is in the eye of the beholder, if you will. As humanity is only effective as a group, the judgement of good or evil must be the recognition of what is good and what is bad for the group.
*Good is that which improves civilization.
*Evil is that which weakens the civilization.
But knowing which is which is a difficult task and can only be resolved by wisdom. Wisdom gives one the ability to make this distinction. I don’t agree that upbringing ensures good in a person, but virtuous behavior does come from that which is virtuous, not evil. Liquid, civilization was man-made too, but does that mean it doesn’t exist? I might have misunderstood you, but think your opinion only holds salt in a framework that is faith-based.
Bob,
If something good is something that is timely, opportune, appropriate, matured, seasoned or ripened and something evil is something that is ill-timed, inappropriate, untimely, undeveloped, immature, and unripe
Perhaps not where you were going but this is an interesting set of metaphors, one that Aeschylus makes use of in the Eumenides. The Erinyes, vengeful spirits of the dead, old ancient hags of archaic wisdom, frightening and monstrous are depicted as “ripe†and perhaps even “over-ripeâ€, ready for bursting, with their wisdom and age and tradition and blood-lust, while the god Apollo, the god of rationality and light and music, calls himself “raw†and “hardâ€, depicted as a youth so handsome, so perfect he has no smudge. Both the archaic wisdom of the earth and the rationality of the mind are in a way untimely, one it too ripe for the branch, one too raw as a fruit. Man seems to fall between these two extremes, the over-ripeness of the flesh and the rawness of the mind. The “injustice” of the play is resolved by Athena, who in wisdom and respect, with the powers of persuasion, brings compromise to the “timelyâ€, reserving a place for each, as an arbiter in court. Female and rational and divine. The “good†may be the negotiation of the instance, drawing on each of the extremes of rawness and ripeness, making the untimely, timely.
Dunamis
Exactly. All man made constructs which we are all trying to squeeze into. Not always a perfect fit.
Maya does not mean that the thing does not exist. It means that in the ultimate sense, in the spiritual sense, it does not exist. Spirit needs civilazation like a fish needs air.
A
Liquid,
So you are saying that neither exists per se in the spiritual world. But what if we are not talking about the spiritual world? Good and evil being virtually one have existed through all eternity, as they will ever continue to exist so long as there is civilization. Saying the spiritual world doesn’t acknowledge good and evil doesn’t make them invisible. Goodness and evil is not a mere shadow of our being, but the whole enchilada as far as I can see. In that case, in the spiritual world nothing exists really?!?.. not terrorism, or famine, or even Chucky Cheese. It would be a lovely notion, but the way I see it is – so many platforms here are driven spiritually that it is impossible to come to terms with any truth, no? Again, you sound spiritually-biased, and I am not being critical, just pragmatic.
Ok, consensus so far suggests’ that man is neither nor, but has the capacity for both. In a religious sense, is this capacity for good and evil a quality God-given? Is it a genetic trait as some suggest? Do the holy books describe accurately the state of man? And what do we do with free will?
JT
Man is neither good nor bad just like an elephant or a cow is neither good nor bad. Man though has the possibility of participating in objective good and evil in relation to his “being” through the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which is separate from us from our fears and imagination. So, excluding rare exceptions, everything essentially remains the same with good and evil restricted to morals and ethics.
Hi Dunamis,
A different source, but the same direction. Thank you for your learned completion of my contribution. I think this speaks for the fact that the ideas that the ancients had about good and evil have to some degree been oversimplified by modern man, perhaps to some degree because of his desire for black/white answers that we see in facism or communism, and apparently in our observation of the global struggle.
In that way it could be that the vengeful spirits of the dead and past are still haunting the modern world. Fundamentalism seems an old hag of archaic wisdom, which I would translate as “antiquated” wisdom. It certainly is “frightening and monstrous.” My source was from the Aramaic root of the word for evil ‘bisha’ that can also point to something being rotten.
Shalom
Bessy, we are always talking about the spiritual world. Trying to seperate spirit from the world is like taking a fish out of water.
Yes Bess, as long as there is civilization, a man made construct.
No, so many platforms here are driven by mind trying to grasp just exactly what spirituality is. We have an idea - we think we are wise. There is a vast difference between seeing the path and walking it.
Yes I’m inclined to dig deeper. Spiritual cultivation is very practical. If it’s not practical it’s not spiritual. Amazing how we wait for miracles and when they don’t come we lose faith.
A
I think if you dig deep enough the whole notion of spirituality, or even that such a thing as a “spirit” exists at all, is an artifical construct. Eastern fantasy or western fantasy, it’s still fantasy.
It can be a useful artifice or a hinderance, depending upon how it’s pursued.
Not to get too deep - but from a broad, floating high above the sea of humanity, POV - I’m a Dunamis/Bessy hybrid: Good is what promotes cohesion within a group; Evil, that which promotes dissolution.
But that’s a bit too abstract in my book. (Admittedly - my book is written in crayon…)
Inherently is a tricky concept when it comes to our species. You can happily argue that animals are little more than organic automotons, clunking through their programs… But Humans, well, at some point our little genetic driving instructors have turned and said “Right, body/host - you can take off your L-plates, off you go and do whatever you see fit to produce offspring and ensure their survival…” We come out off the assembly line with a selection of default settings - but all of them are ultimately customizable…
At best you could possibly say we are in the most part tentatively predisposed to being a good (member of society), all other things being equal.
So - what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’ on an individual basis…?
Good is what we are told is good.
Evil is what we are told is evil.
If there are any genetic/instinctive predisposers - how do they actually work…?
Take the fairly well researched and proven inherrent abhorence of killing another human. Denoted as an ‘evil’ act without seriously mitigating circumstance. I’ll take this as true for arguement’s sake. Is it really a hardwired taboo against killing…? Or is it an innate fear of involving your precious flesh in a situation with potentially, either directly or indirectly, fatal consequence. A selfish wish to avoid present/future pain/harm…?
We do not come out of the womb as doctors or great verbal communicators/psychologists, we do not come out of the womb armed with weapons able to kill beyond the range of sight… How then do we know when we are about to kill someone…? Conflicts over social status/heirachy are pretty much a sure thing in any species - but they seldom go to the point of death - does a Baboon take out a stethoscope mid-fight and check his opponent’s heartbeat…? What do we use as indicators, map-points beyond which our instinct say we should not go…?
I think rather than any deep and meaningful inherent leanings toward morality we are programmed only to recognize and react to certain faces.
There are two facial expressions that apparently we react most strongly to:
Complete submission: The quaking red blubbery face of a downed and thoroughly schooled opponent - his body posture. All of these send a cease and desist order through our animal selves. It can of course be overcome consciously, but it takes an effort of will that implies a hardwired taboo. It makes complete sense - the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend - perhaps you are whupping Joe’s ass right now over a woman or territory, but when the next other-species threat comes along, quite willing to eat both of you - Joe becomes your best mate and brother warrior.
Not so much “Do not kill” as “Do not kill future allies” - not natures fault that we’ve been so successful that outside species threats have become so rare as to be negligable.
Contempt: Marriage counsellors/psychologists have found that relationships fail almost at a rate equivalent to how often one or both of the individuals involved see this expression on the face of their spouse. It apparently overrules the actual verbal components of marital troubles. Someone who holds you so deeply as less than them, or reprehensible according to their own ideals of being - that it shows involuntarily on their faces - automatically discounts you from their group, at an extreme, their species. Then it becomes very easy for them to kill you. Something to be avoided indeed.
So a child, or hell, anyone within a new social group/learning situation - is innately pedisposed to recognize and avoid activity that produces expressions of contempt on the faces of his/her peers.
So:
Good - is that which produces expressions of approval in those around you.
Evil - is that which produces expressions of contempt.
or more succinctly:
Good= 
Evil= 
Maybe, perhaps, tentatively…
Hi Bob
Jesus arrival and time on earth was definitely concluded by many to be ill-timed, inappropriate, untimely, undeveloped, immature, and unripe. Obviously the way he carried himself and the things he said annoyed far more than it attracted so it is safe to say that he wasn’t timely, opportune, appropriate, matured, seasoned or ripened by majority consensus of the common good. So the evil was disposed of in the appropriate fashion.
What a wonderful and accurate description of man asleep. I will begin a thread with a linked article soon on “Annoying the Great Beast” so as to present the other side of the observation when I get the time for it.
Guy with crayon writes:
So what are you suggesting as the cause of being ‘tentatively predisposed’? Could it be a predisposition toward empathetic behaviors? Where does tentative predispostion come from, anyway?
JT
i think its about intention personally. say a person kills so that ten may live. everyone around him knows that no one is in any danger, yet this man is convinced he must kill to save the lives of the ten. he does so. is he evil? is he acting out an evil task? no because he does not have bad or malicious intention. i think good and evil can actually be objectivley seen in chemical impulses in the brain. man has a need to create and destroy, this is our nature. when the impulse to destroy or do something unproductive or negative, this would be viewed as “evil” by society. inversley, something that is done with the intention of being creative or productive (or in order to preserve) can be viewed as good (from a moral standpoint), even if its not beneficial to anyone. thats why selfishness is evil, because society could work much better if people were egoless (though the world would be much less interesting). my social studies teacher would always attribute the fall of communism with the lack of individual reward. this is the selfish, shortsightedness of man (if its true).